Wednesday, March 26, 2014

In
response to the innumerable hardships of the Great Depression, Hollywood
released a series of irreverent comedies throughout the 1930’s that gave
viewers a chance to escape from their problems and kept them coming back for
their next comedic fix. These comedies, known as screwball comedies, featured
whimsical and often bizarre plots in which characters attempt to hilariously
maneuver through outrageous obstacles. As political and financial tensions
continue to mount, our own generation could use a healthy dose of screwball
escapism. Fortunately, there is a new release which not only provides the zany
fun of the 1930’s tradition, but also adds a sharp modern edge; The Grand Budapest Hotel.

The
story begins in 1968 as an unnamed British writer (Jude Law) visits the long
since dilapidated Grand Budapest Hotel in the fictional country of Zubrowka in
hopes of finding some inspiration. Over the course of his stay, the writer
befriends the hotel’s mysterious proprietor, Zero Moustafa (F. Murray Abraham),
who tells the writer the tale of how he rose from a life of poverty to become
the business tycoon that he is today. The film then flashes back to the 1930’s
as young Zero (Tony Revolori) begins on the job training in his new position as
the hotel’s lobby boy under the tutelage of the hotel’s legendary concierge,
Gustave H. (Ralph Fiennes). Zero soon learns that the debonair Gustave goes
above and beyond his duties as concierge, and provides additional services as a
‘companion’ (or as I prefer, gigolo) to many of the wealthy matrons who
frequent the hotel. All is well for the unlikely duo until one of Gustave’s
lady-friends (Tilda Swinton) is found poisoned and her scheming relatives
(headed by Adrien Brody) conveniently place the blame on Gustave, who has
inherited a priceless work of art beseeched to him in her will. A madcap caper
ensues as Zero attempts to break Gustave out of prison and catch the killer,
all while attempting to keep hold of both the priceless painting and his
relationship with local baker’s assistant, Agatha (Saoirse Ronan).

Through
its combination of a fictionalized 1930’s setting and screwball antics, the
film harkens back to the comedies of Hollywood’s Golden Age from start to
finish. Fiennes’ Gustave fills a role that in an earlier era would have been
reserved for plucky actresses such as Carole Lombard or Katherine Hepburn. As
the film progresses, Gustave is revealed to be a modernist take on Don Quixote
who sees nothing but beauty and pleasure in an increasingly difficult and ugly
world. Much like Hollywood’s former leading men and ladies before him, Fiennes imbues
his hapless hero with an endearing if delusional idealism that both lends
credibility to the plot’s often outrageous proceedings and makes it impossible for
viewers not to root for him. Tony Revolori’s Zero provides an excellent straight
man, grounding a story that otherwise revolves around Fiennes’ chaotic center.
Revolori’s deadpan delivery and apt comedic timing, played against Fiennes’
zany enthusiasm makes the pair a formidable comedy team.

Our charming hosts

The
film’s whimsy is heightened by its equally dizzying plot and set design. After
the initial straightforward opening, the story begins spiraling into a complex
web of intrigue and thrills. Each step that Gustave and Zero take towards finding the truth serves to put them into another, even more odd, conundrum than the one
that preceded it. This approach allows the film to make the most of its
standard mystery premise and utilize it to the highest comedic potential. Similarly,
the film’s set, ranging from the pastel rococo design of the hotel to the
quaint storybook-esque city surrounding it, gives the film an unreal quality
befitting a fantasy or fairytale. Each surface of the hotel is shown in bright
colors more befitting a dessert than a luxury hotel, and the landscapes outside
hold a cut and paste quality that makes the entire film resemble a cinema sized
pop-up book. As a result, the
implausible antics of the plot seem perfectly believable in this world of make
believe.

Through
its winning combination of nostalgic humor and modern sensibility, The Grand Budapest Hotel provides modern
audiences with the sort of beguiling comedy that has been sorely lacking in
cinema for several decades. With excellent performances, a razor sharp script,
and an enchanting set, the film transports audiences into another time and
place where unknown dangers and unexpected punch lines wait around every
corner. The film manages to walk the fine line between genre homage and
original venture and is guaranteed to earn appreciation from both classic film
fans and modern cinema buffs alike. So join Zero and Gustave and check into the
Grand Budapest; chances are you’ll want to extend your stay.

Confessions of a Film Junkie: A ‘Classics’ review of “The Mummy”
(1932)

By: Brian Cotnoir

I can’t tell you all
how much I enjoy the “Universal Horror Monsters”. They are one of the essential pillars of
great Horror films. Dracula,
Frankenstein, The Wolf Man, the list just goes on and on. I got into the Universal Horror Monsters
after watching Bela Lugosi in the original “Dracula” film (and I strangely
enough got interested in Bela Lugosi after watching Edward D. Wood Jr.’s “Glen
or Glenda”). So I’ve always had a soft
spot for Bela Lugosi, but to be honest I never was that into Boris
Karloff. Then I saw “The Black Cat” and
I became more interested in checking out his works. For those of you who live under a rock, Boris
Karloff is known most famously for being the actor who played the monster in the
original “Frankenstein” film. I was
going to review that, but one can be said about “Frankenstein” that hasn’t
already been said, so I decided to review one of his less-popular (shall we say) monster movie roles and I decided to
review “The Mummy”.

So
“The Mummy” Starts off Egypt in 1921 in Egypt.
Sir Joseph Whemple and one of his colleagues uncover the mummy of
Imhotep. What Sir Joseph and his
colleagues find most unsettling is that Imhotep does not have any surgeon scars
on his corpse, leaving them to suspect that he may have been embalmed and
entombed alive as a sort of punishment.
After Sir Joseph’s assistant reads from the forbidden “Scroll of Thoth”
Imhotep comes back from the dead and takes the Scroll of Thoth before
disappearing. Ten Years pass and Sir
Joseph’s son, Frank, has followed in his father’s footsteps and is on an
archeological dig of his own in Egypt. A
mysterious stranger by the name of Ardath Bey tells Frank and his colleagues of
a supposed un-opened tomb of the Egyptian Princess Ankh-es-en-amon. Frank and his colleagues discover the princesses’
tomb and have her body and other treasures brought to the Museum in Cairo. Ardath Bey (SPOILERS!)is actually the
resurrected mummy of Imhoteph and Ankh-es-amon was his lover over 3,700 years
ago who he tried to bring back from the dead, but is unable too. Imhotep comes across a woman, named Helen
Grosvenor, who is half-British and half-Egyptian, and bears a striking
resemblance to Ankh-es-en-amon. Imhotep
will stop at nothing to make Helen his bride, but Frank Whemple is willing to
fight him to the death to win the heart of the woman he (claims to) love.

Just look how bored they look

So how would I describe this
film? Oh, I know. It’s
duuuuuull. When you compare this film to other Universal
Horror greats like “Dracula”, “Frankenstein”, “The Wolf man”, and “Phantom of
the Opera”; yes, “The Mummy” is quite dull.
Most of the film was kind of mimicked after the same plot to
“Dracula”: There’s a pretty girl, the
monster attempts to seduce her, the hero comes in destroys the monster and
saves the girl. The End. The only real differences in “The Mummy” are
character names, and they replace the crucifix in “The Mummy” with an ankh to
ward of bad guy. I was actually falling
asleep in my seat trying to make it through this film, and it’s not even that
long; it’s only 73 minutes! That’s how
bored I got.

No really, he's the villain? I would've never guessed!

Not to mention there’s no suspense. We already know that Karloff is playing the
mummy in the film, so when he appears as Ardath Bey, it’s not like it’s
revealed to be a huge twist-to-the-plot,
because you from the second that Ardath Bey introduces himself in the film that
it’s clearly Boris Karloff, and he’s clearly the bad guy.

He's such a tool!

Also, can I
please talk about how much I hate the character Frank Whemple. Okay, so he’s supposedly an archeologist, and yet we never see him do any digging
(he hires the Egyptian locals to do that for him), and yet he get’s almost all
the credit for discovering Ahnk-es-en-amon’s tomb? Then he finds Miss Grovesnor trying to get
into the museum after closing (because she was under Imhotep’s spell) and he
decides that he is “in love” with her and wants to marry her. Oh My Osiris, he is a boring and awful
character. I don’t think it would be
fair to call him a “hero” because he doesn’t do anything. He doesn’t even save the girl! She has to save both of them from Imhotep’s
evil deeds. And I’m just going to come
out and say it: the ending is really
weak. Probably, one of the worst
ending’s I’ve ever seen to a film

Im just gonna take this...okay?

Now
as much as I am bashing this film there are something’s I found cool about this
film is that even though it’s pretty much the same plot as “Dracula” it also
got some of its influence from the real life Discovery of “King Tut’s Tomb” in
1922.The Discover of the Tomb of
Tutankhamen was one of the Biggest and Most Popular Discoveries of the early 20th
Century.So it was smart on Universal
Studio’s part to try and capitalize on the popularity of the tombs
discovery.Also Karloff’s mummy make-up
looks really good.I did some research
on it and found out that his make-up for the opening scene where he is dressed
up as a mummy took 7-hours to do!That
is some serious dedication to your work.The only thing that makes these “effects” more impressive is that I
think they’re still better than the CGI effects in the 1999 remake as well
(granted, I haven’t seen all of “The Mummy” remake)

My advice to you is that if you are fan
of Classic Horror Films and you want to see something good with Karloff in it
go see “The Black Cat” (1934) or “Frankenstein”, and whatever you do just skip
“The Mummy”.

Wednesday, March 19, 2014

Confessions of a Film Junkie: The 5 Worst Films I’ve Reviewed
(So far)

By: Brian Cotnoir

For those of you who
follow my posts on a week-to-week basis, you already know how critical I am
when it comes to reviewing films, and also how negative I can be. I’ve made lists of my favorite films, my
least favorite films, the films that have influenced me, the films that I think
are the Best, and even the films that managed to disturb me. Probably the question I get asked the most on
this blog—especially after I post a negative review of a film—is “so is this [like] the worst film you’ve ever
seen?”.

I have to say, I really do put a
lot of thought into what I’m writing when I post a film review, and when I say
I didn’t like a film, I am going to let you know everything I thought was wrong
with it. I want to help prevent people
from being unfortunate to watch some of these garbage films. In the past I have been openly vocal about
how much I despise films like “Sleeping Beauty” (2011), “Caligula”, “Everyone
Says I Love You”, and pretty much everything made by Uwe Boll or Tyler
Perry. But believe it or not, there are
actually other films that I’ve watched and reviewed that I consider worst then
these. So here is a list of the “10
Worst Films I’ve reviewed (so far). I
can guarantee you 100% that I will do another one of these somewhere down the
road, either a “10 More of the Worst
films I’ve reviewed so far” or maybe, I’ll write a Retrospect on this list
a year later and see if my opinions have changed at all on it.

#10.) Necrosis: Blood Snow

So I originally
reviewed “Necrosis: Blood Snow” as part of my “2-4-1 Special of Danielle De
Luca”. What makes “Necrosis” Blood Snow”
so bad is that the story has no lack of focus or central story. This film has four different subplots and
they have almost nothing to do with one another. You think, you know what’s going to happen
and then they throw in a plot twist
that does not pay off. Not to mention
this film tries to rip off films like “The Shining and “Dead Snow”. You could make a drinking game out of how
many half-a$$ed references are made to other much better Horror films in
“Nercrosis: Blood Snow”.

#9.) Open Graves

I can’t believe I
wasted time watching and reviewing this film.
“Open Graves” is like a D-Movie version of “Final Destination”. The script is terrible, the special effects
are inferior, and the acting is just bad.
The person I feel most bad for in this film is Eliza Dushku, because to
her credit she is actually a talented and likeable actress, so it confuses me
as to why she is appearing in a film as bad and as moronic as “Open
Graves”. I really hope that she knew
this film was going to be bad and took the role not because she wanted to be in
it, but because she thought that since the film is set in Spain, she’d at least
get a paid vacation to Spain for appearing in this awful film. At least that’s what I hope.

#8.) Glen or Glenda

Yeah, I know shouldn’t be surprised that something directed by
Edward D. Wood Jr.—who many people consider to be the Worst film Director of
All-Time—is bad, but I feel this film gets overlooked for how bad it is. I’ve heard so many people say that “Plan 9
From Outer Space” (another one of Wood’s films) is even Worst Film of All-Time,
but I respectfully disagree. Roughly,
one-fourth of “Glen or Glenda” is the same stock footage being shown again and
again throughout the film, and it looks very bad and unprofessional. “Glen or Glenda” was also the first
collaboration between Wood and Hollywood Legend Bela Lugosi. Lugosi’s role has no effect on the plot
whatsoever. He appears at the beginning
of the film, and then briefly in the middle, and he just doesn’t look like he
belongs in the film; he looks like he belongs in another, much better
film. This film is semi-autobiographical
and reflects Wood’s real life secret of being a transvestite. It’s bad, and I think it’s safe to say that
Ed Wood’s debut film is also his worst.

#7.) Blood Night: The Legend of Mary Hatchet

I stand by my original
review of this film: Director Frank Sabatella has the worst case of adult ADHD
ever. Because that is the only logical explanation I could reach for a film
that has a story that is this jumbled.
It’s not scary, it’s not an original story, and there’s more nudity than
kills in this film. Not to mention this
film helped me set a personal best for accurately predicting the ending to a
film I’ve only seen for the first time.
After only 8 minutes I predicted with 100% accuracy how this film was
going to end. If a guy like me—some hack
Film Critic who runs his own blog—can predict an ending to a film that fast,
just imagine how quickly a person as intelligent as you can guess the
ending. This film has no redeeming
qualities whatsoever and it saddens me that the cast to this film includes
horror movie greats like Bill Moseley and Danielle Harris. Oh, and this film also features a Dushku
(Nathaniel Dushku, older brother to Eliza Dushku who we’ve already talked about
on this list).

#6.) Chicago Massacre: Richard Speck

Okay, this is without
a doubt the worst Serial Killer bio-pic ever made. I reviewed this film as part of my “2-4-1
Special of Corin Nemic in Horror Part I” and it was painful to sit
through. This was one of three films
based on a famous serial killer that Corin Nemec has appeared in, and it is
without a doubt the worst of them. This
film was written and directed by Michael Fiefer who wrote and directed six
straight to DVD films about the lives of famous American serial killers in a
two year span. Corin Nemec, as much as I
enjoy him as an actor is terrible in this film.
He is so over-the-top and annoying in this film that it makes me want to
go out and commit my own horrific crimes.
Fortunately for Mr. Nemec his acting had greatly improved by the time he
played Ted Bundy in “Bundy: An American Icon” and he managed to tone down some
of that over the top rage from “Chicago Massacre: Richard Speck”.

#5.) The Mooring

So. Much. Awful!

This 2012 film is bad,
and it is that it is probably the Most Boring (classified as a) “Horror/Thriller”
I have ever seen. What makes it so
boring is that all the main characters are comprised of the least interesting
demographic in the world: Teenage girls.
Listen to a group of 13-15 year old girls talk for about 10-15 minutes
and tell me how many “interesting” things they talk about in their
conversation. Now imagine that
conversation stretched out into a 90 minute film and you have an incredibly
dull film. Most of the dialogue in this
film comprises of high-pitched screaming and crying. And of course we get that great Horror cliché: villain is an evil
murderous redneck for the sake of being an evil murderous redneck. Nothing of interest happens in this film. It
is a weak story, with weak dialogue, and weak characters. Just don’t even bother with it, it’s that
bad.

#4.) Teen Witch

Shes worst than Bella from "Twilight"

Easily, one of the Worst Films of the 1980’s, “Teen Witch” is a
God awful mess of a film. Though, I
suppose it’s not entirely the film’s fault.
During the 1980’s and 1990’s a lot of successful films and television
series tried capitalizing on their popularity by making and releasing shows that
were made to be more girlie so it can
be marketed towards a female audience.
“Teen Witch” was made and marketed towards girls in the 1980’s following
the success of the Michael J. Fox film, “Teen Wolf”. However, “Teen Witch” is nowhere near as
successful as “Teen Wolf”, and it’s very apparent why. The dialogue is moronic, the acting is second
rate, and the story has a ton of plot holes.
It is boring, it is uninteresting, and I still honestly believe that
this is the Worst film you could ever let your children watch.

#3.) Cool World

At least you still have a career, Brad

Oh my...this
film. This film is absolute trash! I can’t even begin to tell you how much I
despise it. This film is half animation,
half live-action and it’s like the bastard off spring of “Who Framed Roger
Rabbit?”. Just to give you all an idea
of how much I hate this film: when I was in college, my friends and I used to
go to this local comic book shop up the street and they had a Cardboard cutout
display from when “Cool World” was being shown in theatres for sale, and I
can’t tell you how many times I contemplated buying it just so I could burn
it. I never did, because I had better
things to spend $90 on. When watching
“Cool World” so many questions will come up, like; what the hell is wrong with Ralph Bakshi? Why does everything he make, in regards to
animation, have to be so freaking weird and unpleasant? I mean my God this film
is wrong on so many different levels.
How the hell did it only garner a PG-13 rating? It’s a good thing Brad Pitt is so damn good
looking or else he would not have had a career after appearing in this film. I
ranked this film #1 on my list of “Top 10 Films that make me want to punch
somebody in the face” and I think the only appropriate thing to do with this
film is to gather all copies of this film put it in a vault encase that vault
in concrete and then dump down the deepest trench of the ocean so no one will
ever be forced to sit through it or see it again.

2.) H.P. Lovecraft’s The
Tomb

BLASPHEMY!!!!

Oh my...this one is a
doozy. I only reviewed this film a few
weeks ago, and I felt it was more than deserving of the number two spot on this
list. This film is a failure on so many different levels. For one thing it has nothing to do with the
source material that it takes its title from, in fact author H.P. Lovecraft is
barely even mentioned in this film.
Another part where “The Tomb” fails miserably is that it is trying so
hard to rip off the film “Saw”. I think
a group of High School Seniors could make a better adaptation than the films
writer/director Ulli Lommel. Everything
about this film is cheap: the sets, the cast, the costuming, the story, the
film equipment. I think anyone who had
anything to do with this film should be black listed and never allowed to work
in Hollywood ever again. I don’t think
the cast and crew of this film are even qualified enough to do porn or public
access that’s show bad of a film this is.
I said it before, that this is probably the Worst Straight to Video Film
ever made, and it’s also one of the Worst Horror films ever made as well. No one should ever have to be subjugated to
see “H.P. Lovecraft’s The Tomb” ever, for any reason.

#1.) Birdemic: Shock &
Terror

Even Helen Keller thinks it sucks!

Wow...this film is bad! The film’s director spent 4 years working on
this film and it’s still worst then “Plan 9 From Outer Space”, worst then
“Troll 2”, worst than “ThanksKILLING”, it’s worst then anything that I have
reviewed so far. This film is not a poorly done adaptation of Alfred
Hitchcock’s “The Birds”. “Birdemic:
Shock & Terror” is like if Uwe Boll videotaped Alfred Hitchcock’s “The
Birds” being gang raped by “The Room” and “Highlander II”. And the scariest part of this is that I know
somewhere down the road I will find something worst then “Birdemic: Shock &
Terror”. I say that because I have this
theory that films can and do get progressively worst over time due to
technological advances. I can forgive a film like “Plan 9...” for being bad
because even with all its many MANY faults, you know that Ed Wood was trying
his damndest to make a good film. Even a
film like “ThanksKILLING” I can forgive because it was made bad on purpose, but this sh!t is inexcusable. If you cannot afford decent enough CGI
effects to make your film, then don’t make it.
Put it on hold or wait till better more cost effective effects come out,
but do not give me this piece of sh!t film with “actors” I’m sure you probably
picked up at Starbucks and use effects that make Ed Wood’s “Hub Cap Spaceships”
look like The Enterprise and market
it as a modernization of a beloved classic Horror film. The State of California should pass a law
making it illegal to make or release a film as bad or worst then “Birdemic: Shock & Terror”. I shudder to think of the possible
cine-massacre that could replace this film as the Worst Film I’ve Reviewed So
far.

Before Henry Hill and his associates taught
audiences the meaning of the term ‘goodfella’, before Tony Montana introduced
us all to his ‘little friend, and before Don Corleone made offers no viewer
could refuse there was a scrappy bootlegger called Tom Powers trying to make
his mark in Chicago’s underworld. Through his multifaceted characterization,
James Cagney made Tom Powers one of Hollywood’s most dynamic villains and its first
gangster whom audiences couldn’t help but root for. With this film, Cagney
introduced his unique persona to filmgoers and the gangster genre has never been
the same since. In belated honor of St. Patrick’s Day, this week’s review will
pay a much deserved tribute to this groundbreaking tale of the Irish mob that
set the stage for decades of gangster films to come.

The story follows the traditional gangster tale
formula of detailing the rise and fall of its protagonist, the tough talking
and fast shooting gangster, Tom Powers. The film begins not with Tom’s
introduction to his life of crime, however, but instead with his childhood in
1915. The opening scenes reveal that while Tom’s family was far from perfect,
they were essentially an average family attempting to make a decent living. The story continues as Tom and his friend, Matt Doyle (Ed Woods),
begin committing petty crimes for the Fagin-like con artist, Putty Nose (Murray
Kinnell). As time goes on, the boys work their way up to committing more
serious and sophisticated crimes until Putty Nose assigns them to rob a fur
warehouse. After the robbery goes awry, the boys learn that Putty Nose has
already left town, leaving them to face all repercussions alone. The robbery
forces the boys to lay low and temporarily forgo their burgeoning criminal
careers until they are approached by local bootlegger, Paddy Ryan, (Robert Emmett
O’Connor) to join his mob as enforcers. The two eagerly accept the offer and
begin living the high life of wealth and women of the Prohibition-era
underworld. Just as it seems that they are about to reach the top of their
game, however, Tom and Matt find themselves in the midst of a city-wide gang
war and learn that they might not be ‘so tough’ after all.

One of the most notable aspects of The Public Enemy is the gritty and
brutal realism with which it portrays Prohibition-era mob life. Throughout the
film, the victims of Tom and his associates are continually referenced as
reminders of the all too real price that society pays when it glamorizes its
criminals. Similarly, all of the gangsters, while initially likable, are
quickly revealed to be duplicitous and ruthless in their interactions with both
their enemies and their supposed friends. The extent of gangland brutality is
expertly captured in the infamous scene in which Tom smashes half a grapefruit
in his girlfriend’s face for talking back, and another scene in which Tom guns
down a former associate as the man pleads for his life. As a result, while Tom
is the film’s protagonist, he is never presented as anything remotely
resembling a hero. This approach, while typical of the film’s era is refreshing
in a time in which criminals are routinely presented as loveable rebels.
Through this gritty approach to its subject, the film is able to present an
accurate account of both mob life and the people who inhabit it.

Good mornin', good mornin'...

While most of the elements that make up the film’s
plot have since become standard fare, several members of the cast more than
make up for the story’s more dated elements. Murray Kinnell’s performance as
the charmingly shameless Putty Nose brings comic relief to the film’s early
scenes and pathos to its later scenes when a hardened Tom seeks him out for
revenge. Similarly, Robert Emmett O’Connor’s Paddy Ryan is such a genuinely
likable character that O’Connor almost makes audiences forget about the
bloodshed that his character is responsible for. One of the film’s most
interesting turns is from Beryl Mercer as Tom’s childishly naïve mother. In her
portrayal, Mercer presents a portrait of a woman so desperate for a happy home
that she deludes herself about her son and completely blind herself to the reality of his criminal lifestyle. Mae Clarke
adds spunk to her role as Tom’s neglected girlfriend, making her performance
far more enjoyable than Jean Harlowe’s bland portrayal of Tom’s new girlfriend,
which unfortunately comes across as more of a script reading than a full-fledged
performance. The supporting cast members lend apt support, particularly Ed
Woods and Leslie Fenton as Matt and fellow gangster Nails Nathan.

Despite the many enjoyable performances in the film,
The Public Enemy undoubtedly belongs
to its star, James Cagney. At the time of the film’s production, Hollywood was
still adjusting to the advent of ‘talking’ pictures and many writers,
directors, and actors were still relying upon obsolete techniques left over
from the silent era. As a result, many of the films released at the start of
the 1930’s possess an awkward, stilted, quality due to a combination of
minimalist plots, stagey dialogue, and most noticeably, overacted performances.
The Public Enemy, however, contains a
charge that is nothing short of electric as audiences witness Cagney’s neighborhood tough evolve
into a truly ruthless criminal. This is due in large part to Cagney’s previous
experience working on the New York stage before beginning his film career, which
provided him with a foundation in improvising and realistic acting. Cagney also
brought his real life experiences into play as he utilized his knowledge of
city life and the colorful characters who inhabit it to imbue his performance
with a strangely endearing combination of street smarts, personal insecurity,
ambition, and gritty charm. The depth and energy of his performance makes Tom
stand out as far more than just another tough guy and instead makes him an
accurate portrait of the dark side of the American Dream during the Great
Depression. His performance is truly multidimensional as he effortlessly shifts
between Tom’s hardened persona in front of his friends, to his insecurity
at home, to his relentless need to prove his worth on the streets. Cagney’s
turn in The Public Enemy remains one
of the most fascinating and entertaining portrayals of a criminal in cinema, and
an example of the modern acting that would soon overtake Hollywood as it
entered its Golden Age.

Through its striking realism, The Public Enemy was one of the first films to show 1930’s
audiences the true potential of sound film. The film provides an excellent
portrayal of the temptation and inevitable failings of criminal life that remain as
alluring and chilling today as they were upon the film’s original release. The
film brought James Cagney to viewers’ attention, launching what would become a
legendary career that spanned over five decades. Join Cagney and the rest of the cast for a truly explosive good time that you won't soon forget.

Wednesday, March 12, 2014

One of cinema’s most powerful genres is the war
film. Through their depiction of the physical destruction and mental
devastation that war inflicts upon soldiers and civilians alike, the best war
films tell universal tales that are relatable to people of all eras, cultures,
and lifestyles. One of the shortcomings of watching period war films, however,
is that they are unable to provide the full story of any given conflict within
the confines of the screen. As a result, it is difficult for viewers to see the
big picture of the numerous events leading up to or gain insight into the
reasons behind any given conflict. One unique war film, however, chronicles not
only the turmoil of war but also the various political intrigues that spark and
fuel it; The Quiet American. Through
its portrayal of civil unrest and domestic distress in 1950’s Vietnam, The Quiet American provides an unusual
and unusually informative take on the Vietnam War, which its story foreshadows.

The story begins in 1952 Saigon as British reporter
Thomas Fowler (Michael Caine) introduces viewers to the seeming paradise of his
expatriate life. Fowler spends his days writing bland articles chronicling the
most obvious events of the civil war unfolding between colonialists and
communists in the northern part of Vietnam, and his nights doting upon his
Vietnamese mistress, Phuong (Do Thi Hai Yen). The simple comforts of Fowler’s
life are soon called into question, however, with the arrival of American aid
worker Alden Pyle (Brendan Fraser), whose friendship challenges Fowler’s stance
upon the political events surrounding him. According to Pyle, neither
colonialism nor communism is the solution to Vietnam’s troubles and a third,
moderate, force must therefore be utilized to neutralize both sides. Fowler
initially brushes off Pyle’s political theories as the vague, idealistic,
dreams that are so common amongst the young and inexperienced. Despite their
different political views, the two form a strong friendship that is later
tested when Pyle falls in love with Phuong and offers her the two things that
Fowler never can; marriage and passage out of Vietnam. When his newspaper
requests that he return to London after determining that there is not enough of
a story to cover, Fowler sets out to find the inside story behind the accepted
Vietnam narrative. During his investigation, Fowler unexpectedly meets up with
Pyle again and learns that there is far more to his American friend than naive
ideals after all.

While numerous films have related varying accounts
of the Vietnam War, The Quiet American
stands out for its willingness to examine the reasons and events that led to
it. Rather than taking a definitive stance, the film instead chooses an
approach similar to that of its protagonist and observes as the intrigues
between the conflicting factions unfold. The film relates both the financial
motives and paternalistic approach that fueled the colonial rule of the French
controlled government of Indochina (the colonial name for Vietnam), as well the
oppression that led to the nation’s eventual communist uprising. The film
delves even deeper into the politics of the time by including the covert
tactics utilized by the United States in Vietnam and other nations throughout
the Cold War. The most effective aspect of the film’s political portrayal is
the way in which all sides are shown to be equally and ruthlessly devoted to
their own goals, regardless of the damage that will be inflicted upon the
civilian population in order for those goals to be achieved.

The film was originally due to be released in September,
2001, but was held back after the terrorist attacks of September 11th,
as its politically charged story was deemed to be ‘anti-American’, rather than
simply anti-war. It was this same view of the story that led MGM to alter
Pyle’s character and soften the film’s ending in their 1958 adaptation, which
both nullified the message of Graham Green’s original novel and limited the
story’s emotional impact. In order to avoid a possible backlash, Miramax planned
to release the film straight to dvd, but fortunately reconsidered after being
persuaded to test the film at the Toronto International Film Festival by star
Michael Caine. The film went on to become a critical success at the festival
and an even greater success later at the Academy Awards in which Caine was
nominated for the Academy Award for Best Actor. The story remains as effective
an anti-war tale today as it was upon the novel’s publication in 1955 and has
as much, if not more, poignancy and relevance in today’s world of complicated and
conflicted international relations.

A greencard is always a solid basis for a marriage

While the central love triangle serves as an
excellent metaphor for the rival forces competing for control of Vietnam
(Fowler represents complacent Europe while Pyle represents idealistic America)
the domestic struggle that it creates is just as complicated and compelling as the
political struggle that provides its backdrop. Instead of one man being the
clear choice for Phuong, both men are shown to be equally in love with her and both
are later revealed to be guarding secrets from her. Initially, Fowler’s
relationship with her seems to be a superficial one based upon his physical
attraction and her need for financial stability. This first impression is
further reinforced when Fowler confides in Pyle that the reason that he and
Phuong are living together rather than married is because he already has a wife
whom he left behind in London. Similarly, Pyle’s relationship with her is based
upon his need to protect and take care of someone, and she in turn is all too
happy to be taken care of. As the film continues, however, Pyle’s desire to
take care of both Phuong and her country is shown to be far more complicated
and dangerous than a simple need to help others. The love triangle turns even
more convoluted when Pyle is eventually revealed to be working in Vietnam as a
CIA agent rather than an aid worker, and the true depth of Fowler’s feelings for
Phuong finally becomes all too clear to both her and viewers. As a result, audiences
are able to empathize with all three parties, which in turn enables them to
become more engaged with both the characters and the overall story.

Although the film’s script is excellent, the final
product would not have been nearly as effective or intriguing without its
talented cast. As the world weary Fowler, Michael Caine demonstrates equal
parts cynicism and vulnerability, making him equally convincing as both a
detached playboy expatriate and a crusading reporter. The subtlety of his
performance allows him to display a full range of contradicting emotions while
remaining believable and relatable. Similarly, Brendan Fraser perfectly
captures Pyle’s outward naivety and hidden ruthlessness with equal skill. His
portrayal of Pyle is particularly worth noting for the fact that even after
Pyle’s double life is revealed he is still able to maintain his character’s
initial idealism, providing credibility to Pyle’s devotion to what he tells
himself is a just cause. Finally, Do Hai Yen provides a fascinating performance
as the enigmatic Phuong, elevating her heroine beyond a mere symbol into a
flesh and blood woman.

For its mature approach to a complex topic, The Quiet American is a film that will
continue to inform and entertain for years to come. Through its exploration of
the early causes and intrigues that preceded the Vietnam War, the film provides
excellent insight into how and why the war occurred. Through its intelligent
script, superb performances, and gorgeous cinematography, the film provides
viewers with a combination of romance, mystery, intrigue, and atmosphere that
is both entertaining and informative. While the story of The Quiet American is specific to Vietnam, its message is one that
remains relevant in any age or nation.

Oh what a tangled web we weave...

FOR ANOTHER LOOK AT EXPATS CAUGHT UP IN INTERNATIONAL CONFLICT, DON'T MISS MY FULL-LENGTH SCREENPLAY A FIGHTING CHANCE http://offthewallplays.com/2015/02/19/a-fighting-chance-screenplay-about-spanish-civil-war/

...Why Do I continue to do this to
myself? This can’t be healthy for
me. As I’m typing this, I’m still
clinging to the last few strands of my sanity.
I knew this day would come. I
knew someday I would take it upon myself to watch a film that’s more unpleasant
than “Cannibal Holocaust”. I have no one
to blame, but myself for this disaster.
I did it to myself. The fact that
I chose to watch this film alone and in just one sitting speaks volumes of how
strong of a will I have. I threw up my
mouth 3-times while watching this film; I shuddered countless times, and yet I
did not look away from the screen. I’m
not going to talk about some of the more graphic details of the film, because I
want to spare you the loss of your innocence, and I want to persuade you to AVOID THIS FILM BY ALL COSTS NECESARRY! It’s just not worth it people.

It get's weirder...and a lot more awful throughout!

So
the film is set in Italy during World War II.
A group led by four Fascist men sends out an order to have 9 young men
and 9 young women forcefully taken from their families to be brought to
compound where they are to be used as sex slaves for the men. They are forced to sit on the floors and
listen to a woman (who’s been a professional whore since she was about 7)
recount all of her most bizarre and disgusting sexual experiences, all of which
the young people are forced to re-create against their will by the four Fascist
men and their armed guards. What happens
throughout the rest of the film can only be described as a descent into Hell. I’ll spare you the details because I don’t
want to destroy your sense of innocence and wonder like mine was destroyed.

What
can I say about the characters in this film?
They’re just downright evil and malevolent. The whole time I was watching this film I
just felt so bad for the actors who had to play the victims; the villains are
that evil. What’s even scarier is that
almost the whole time I was watching “Salo” I completely forgot I was watching
a film. It’s not like I was watching a
“Last House on the Left” or “Deadgirl” and I could just tell myself over and
over again, “it’s just a movie”, I
honestly started to believe that the characters in this film were being
tortured.

You're a sick man, Fat Russell Crowe!!!

You know the term “Torture Porn” is
typically used to describe a film that’s excessively violent for the sake of
being excessively violent (like “Hostel” or “Human Centipede”) and is usually
widely enjoyed by people who see it because it’s excessively violent. However, “Salo” is actual torture porn. All the
teenagers in this film are being humiliated, demeaned, and violated sexually
and it’s all for the sake of helping these four men “get off”. It’s not
entertaining, it’s not enjoyable, it’s just sick and disgusting! Who the hell wants to see a 20 minutes worth
of scenes where the characters are forced to eat their own fecal matter? It’s a 2-hour film with an hour-and-a-half of
young people being raped and tortured; who the hell in their right mind would
want to see that? You’re always going to
upset some people when you combine sex and violence, but if you do it as much
as “Salo, or the 120 Days of Sodom”, you’re not going to upset people, you’re
going to offend them in ways unimaginable.

This
film is too much, it just crosses way too many boundaries, and this is a
statement coming from a guy who has sat through multiple viewings of “A Serbian
Film”.I’m not suggesting that you avoid
this film I am BEGGING you to
avoid it.I didn’t listen to the other
internet reviewers who told me to skip this one, and now I am paying the
ultimate price.If I can convince you to
not see this film, then my suffering won’t have been in vain.Please, if you are thinking of sitting
through this film, don’t do it because you will end up regretting it for the
rest of your life.

Wednesday, March 5, 2014

1.GRETA GARBO: Known as “the Swedish Sphinx”, this star is today best remembered for
'wanting to be alone’. Throughout the 1920’s and into the early 1930’s,
however, Greta Garbo was the undisputed queen of the silver screen. Despite her
typecast start as a silent film vamp, Garbo was actually a versatile actress
whose subtle approach to her craft broke the melodramatic standards set by her
peers. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress on four occasions,
including once for her comeback role in her first comedy, the 1939 political satire Ninotchka. Despite all the work that she
put into her performances, Garbo never seemed to regret her Academy losses and
instead came to dismiss her star status and resent the toll that it took upon
her private life. She unofficially retired (she continued to review scripts and
made a final screentest in 1949) from film in 1941 following the critical and commercial
failure of her attempt at a follow-up comedic role in Two Faced Woman. She was awarded an Academy Honorary Award in
1955, which was accepted on her behalf by fellow actress Nancy Kelly as Garbo
declined to attend the ceremony. Today, Greta Garbo remains an enigmatic cinema icon
amongst classic film fans and was recently ranked fifth on the American Film
Institute’s list of Greatest Female Stars of All Time.

2.BARBARA STANWYCK: Domestic melodrama, screwball comedy, film noir, western; Brooklyn
gal Barbara Stanwyck proved her mettle in all these genres and more in a career
that spanned nearly six decades. After making a modest beginning as a Broadway
chorus girl, Stanwyck made her film debut in a silent bit part before quickly
working her way up to becoming one of the most versatile actresses of all time.
Never one to turn down a challenge, she used her chameleon-like skill to move
with the changing trends of several eras, playing women of diverse ages and
social classes with her trademark combination of street smarts and honest
emotion. She was nominated for an Academy Award for Best Actress on four occasions,
including her memorable turn as femme fatale Phyllis Dietrichson in the
1945 noir classic Double Indemnity. True
to her working class roots, Stanwyck was far more interested in continuing to
work than in receiving awards, saying “I’m a tough old broad from Brooklyn. I
intend to go on acting until I’m ninety”.
She finally won an Academy Honorary Award in 1982. Barbara Stanwyck remains a true cinema classic and a shining example of what
an actress can achieve if she possesses talent, a good work ethic, and the willingness to try something new.

3.

CARY GRANT:
Suave, sophisticated, and endlessly entertaining are just a few ways that fans
would describe Cary Grant. After holding his own while starring opposite saucy
sexpot Mae West in a pair of films in the early 1930’s ,Grant went on to become the most in demand leading man of the
following three decades. Over the course of his career, he played a wide array
of parts ranging from conflicted dramatic heroes to hapless comedic foils with
equal skill. Unfortunately, Grant was and continues to be better known for his
leading man good looks than his dramatic depth, and was unfairly overlooked as
a mere ‘pretty face’ throughout his career. Beneath his debonair persona,
however, lay a deep internal torment as he spent his life battling a severe
case of depression, which led him to experiment with various forms of therapy
and mood altering drugs, including prescribed LSD. He was nominated for two
Academy Awards for Best Actor for his roles in the dramas Penny Serenade and Suspicion, and
was reportedly elated when he finally received an Academy Honorary Award in
1970. Today, Cary Grant is one of the
most easily recognizable actors of Hollywood’s Golden Era and was recently
ranked as the second greatest star on the American Film Institute’s list of Greatest
Male Stars of All Time. Oh, and for the record, he never did say, “Judy, Judy,
Judy”, although he did utter a slew of unforgettable lines throughout his
expansive career.

4.
ALFRED HITCHCOCK:
The ‘master of suspense’ is so famous that even his silhouette is instantly
recognizable. Between 1922 and 1976, Hitchcock directed over fifty full length
films as well as the pioneering suspense series Alfred Hitchcock Presents, which lasted ten seasons. Over the
course of his career, he debuted several stylistic techniques including
voyeuristic camera movements, false flashbacks, and decoy plot devices known as
‘MacGuffins’. Through his innovative style he brought a more complicated form
of suspense to cinema, which forced audiences to empathize with unsavory
protagonists and acknowledge their own hidden dark sides. His most recognizable
hits include Rear Window, Strangers on a
Train, The Man Who Knew Too Much, North by Northwest, Vertigo, Psycho, and The Birds. Despite the success of his
films today, many of his films were denounced by critics upon their release for
breaking the established rules of film. He was nominated for five Academy Awards
for Best Director, and although he did not win any of them, his 1941 film Rebecca won the Academy Award for Best
Picture and several actors won Oscars for their roles in his films. Over time,
Alfred Hitchcock has become synonymous with expert directing and the art of suspense
for his ability to demonstrate a skill and innovation that many have imitated
but none have equaled.

5. PETER
O’TOOLE: From period pieces, to capers, to comedies, to
biographies, to

musicals Peter O’Toole has proven himself to be an adept actor
in nearly every film genre. O’Toole began his acting career not on the screen,
but on the British stage as a Shakespearean actor with the English Stage
Company. His breakout film was the epic Lawrence
of Arabia in which he played the complicated and elusive WWI British army
officer T. E. Lawrence. Following his successful introduction to American
audiences in Lawrence, he starred in
a series of successful films throughout the 1960’s and 1970’s, including the
historical dramas Becket and Lion in Winter. In the late 1970’s O’Toole
underwent surgery for a misdiagnosed case of pancreatic cancer, which included
removing a large portion of his pancreas and stomach. The surgery led to insulin-dependent
diabetes and ultimately forced him to give up his addiction to alcohol. He
later survived a near fatal blood disorder in 1978, but continued working steadily
throughout the next three decades. At eight Academy Award nominations for Best
Actor, he currently holds the record for the largest number of Academy Award
nominations without winning, but did receive an Academy Honorary Award in 2003.

Ho. Ly. Crap. I...I’m almost a loss for words on this one
folks. I mean...how the hell did
this...this film is just so...awful! And
what’s worse is that it claims to be an adaptation of one of the great works of
H.P. Lovecraft, but in all actuality it has nothing to do with Lovecraft, it
has nothing to do with anything, it’s just so awful, and I hate it! I Hate It! I HATE IT! All right, let’s not waste
anymore time, let’s take a look at “H.P. Lovecraft’s The Tomb”.

So the film opens with
some guy in a cloak, wearing one of those cheap white face masks that you buy
at a Halloween supply store, riding a horse, as he drops a girl, Tara, in an
abandoned warehouse...this is the point where you should give up all hope on
this film, the picture quality is so crappy, and the opening credits look like
something you’d see in a High School News production, but I digress. Let’s get back to this blasphemous atrocity
of a film. So Tara comes across a man
named Billy and the two of them soon discover that they are pawns under a
mysterious puppet master killer who we later find out is named Richard Leland
Morris (but sometimes goes by the alias “Charles Dexter Ward...you get it?!?!)
and he is keeping the people there because they had all wronged him at some point in his life. So the Puppet Master, instructs the people
that they are “playing a game”, where there will only be one winner who gets to
go free...and you know what I can’t continue on any more from here, because
from this point on the film is just trying to rip-off “Saw”, and I don’t want
to waste anymore time describing this plot to this abomination.

Who did the Costumes for your film, IParty???

So if sh!tting all over Lovecraft’s name isn’t
bad enough this film also has to drag the “Saw” series into it as well. Why?
“Saw” is already made and released by a better studio that makes more
money than you will ever see, so why do you think that you can make your own much better version of the film? It’s so very clear that they’re trying to rip
“Saw” that you could probably make a drinking game out of all the “Saw”
references in this film. The film does
mention Lovecraft, and by that I mean they say his name a few times, but it has
absolutely zero connection to his original short story, which is really
dumb. That’s like making a Harry Potter
film and changing the plot to make it more like “Citizen Kane”! Some of you may remember from my
“Re-Animator” review how I talk about how, so many films adapted from the works
of Lovecraft stray away from his original stories and are typically poorly
adapted, and this is probably the worst offender I’ve seen yet. There is literally nothing that this film
shares or copies from H.P. Lovecraft’s short story “The Tomb”, The only thing this film does to H.P.
Lovecraft is desecrate his name and work, and I’m sure somewhere in the 9th
Dimension he is cursing this film. Oh
not to mention it has such a dumbest ending I’ve ever seen in a film. Who the hell just gives person they just
spent hours torturing a Porsche convertible and a suitcase full of cash?! Oh and that “surprise twist ending” was even dumber than the original ending.

His vengeance will be agonizing!

I’m
shocked, at how bad this film is. It is
easily one of the Worst Films I have had the displeasure of watching on
Netflix. I’ll be honest the whole time I
was watching this film, I convinced that this film had to be made by a group of
High School students or entry level Film School students as part of a class
project, but I was absolutely appalled to find out that this film was made by
an actual studio because of how poorly it was done. The acting is deplorable, the picture quality
is sh!t, the audio is even worst—I had to watch the whole film with subtitles
on because of how badly the sound was—and the “tomb” is clearly an abandoned
warehouse with Halloween decorations hanging off of storage shelves. Everything about this film looks so fake.

I honestly cannot find one kind thing
to say about this film.It is an
embarrassment, I don’t even think it deserves to be called a “film” or a
“movie”, I think it should be called what it really is a God Awful Mess that
should not be viewed by anyone.Even a
person who is clinically brain dead can realize that this film is total rubbish
and offer absolutely zero entertainment.“H.P. Lovecraft’s The Tomb” is easily one of the Worst Films ever made,
and I think the films writer/director Ulli Lommel should be ashamed of
releasing such a terrible film to the general public and the Netflix
audience.